CSA CCM v4vsIMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)
See exactly how CSA CCM v4 controls map to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
CSA CCM v4 maps to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) with 8% coverage across 13 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 171 CSA CCM v4 controls identifies 158 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 171 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 16 of 16 mapped controls across 7 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
BCR - Business Continuity Management & Operational Resilience(6 mappings)
CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management(3 mappings)
DSP - Data Security & Privacy Lifecycle Management(1 mappings)
GRC - Governance, Risk and Compliance(1 mappings)
HRS - Human Resources(1 mappings)
IAM - Identity & Access Management(3 mappings)
LOG - Logging and Monitoring(1 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other CSA CCM v4 comparisons
Other IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 693 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between CSA CCM v4 and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
CSA CCM v4 has 171 controls across its framework, while IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) covers 12 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 13 overlapping controls (8% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management, where 19 CSA CCM v4 controls have no direct IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) equivalent.
How many controls map between CSA CCM v4 and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
Of 171 total CSA CCM v4 controls, 13 map directly to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2) controls — representing 8% coverage. The remaining 158 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping CSA CCM v4 to IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
158 CSA CCM v4 controls have no direct equivalent in IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2). The highest concentration of gaps is in CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management with 19 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between CSA CCM v4 and IMO Maritime Cybersecurity Guidelines (MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3/Rev.2)?
The domain with the highest gap count is CEK - Cryptography, Encryption & Key Management (19 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.